Why do pirates, pirate?

[Gary_Robson]

I think the most common reason for piracy is “because I can get away with it.” I wrote and released a shareware game. It was apparently quite popular, as I saw discussions on public forums. People emailed me to ask for more levels, customizations, ports to other platforms, and so forth. I’m not a fan of crippleware or nag screens, so it had a “pay shareware fee” menu selection and a message on the loading screen. Guess how many people paid the shareware fee? One. Yep. I got one stinking check in the two years I supported the product. Thanks a bunch, people. No more shareware from me – ever!

As for music, I’ll admit to this one. I believe that when I purchase a copy of a song, I have the right to have and listen to that song. Therefore, if I’ve paid for it on 8-track, cassette, or LP, I don’t have a problem with getting a digital copy of the same song from a friend for my iTunes library.

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
Try this one–“The owner will not release the complete series on DVD, or release it at all. Since they’re not making money, I’m not hurting them getting it any way I can.”
[/QUOTE]
People who use this excuse are forgetting the basis of copyright law: The creator OWNS (at least for some period of time) the creation. If you write a fantastic song and decide you are not going to release it in recorded form, that does not make it legal for someone to make a bootleg at one of your live performances and give it away or sell it. The “Bosda won’t release it, so what I’m doing is okay” argument is legally and morally bunk. The copyright owner may distribute or not distribute the protected work as he or she chooses.

[Acid_Lamp]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]

People who use this excuse are forgetting the basis of copyright law: The creator OWNS (at least for some period of time) the creation. If you write a fantastic song and decide you are not going to release it in recorded form, that does not make it legal for someone to make a bootleg at one of your live performances and give it away or sell it. The “Bosda won’t release it, so what I’m doing is okay” argument is legally and morally bunk. The copyright owner may distribute or not distribute the protected work as he or she chooses.
[/QUOTE]

Sell it, no. Give it away, Hell yes. If you performed that song anywhere public, it is at least IMHO out there for anyone to listen to. If I can remember your tune and sing it, or play it on guitar, etc am I infringing on your rights when you put it out there for me to listen to? I think not. I think that a reasonable time frame can be established for this as well. If there is a significant gap in time between a release, public or otherwise of a song or film, and years go by without a digital release; then fans have every right to put it out there for each other.

[tim314]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
People who use this excuse are forgetting the basis of copyright law: The creator OWNS (at least for some period of time) the creation. If you write a fantastic song and decide you are not going to release it in recorded form, that does not make it legal for someone to make a bootleg at one of your live performances and give it away or sell it. The “Bosda won’t release it, so what I’m doing is okay” argument is legally and morally bunk. The copyright owner may distribute or not distribute the protected work as he or she chooses.
[/QUOTE]

Legally bunk, perhaps, but morally?

It’s the one think if a creator of, say, a Japanese cartoon chooses not to realease an English-language version because they genuinely don’t want non-Japanese speakers to watch it. It’s another if they just decide it’s not worth the trouble of translating. In that case, the creator would presumably not care if non-Japanese speakers watch a free English version, since they have no intent of marketing an English-language version. If anything, wouldn’t you expect that the creator of a cartoon would want as many people to enjoy their work as possible (so long as they aren’t enjoying it in a way that reduces the creator’s profit from the work)? Plus, allowing more people to watch the work means the creator becomes better known to the English speaking audience, and thus any of their future works which are marketed in English will most likely sell better.

If someone genuinely believes that the creator of a work wouldn’t mind if they download a translated version, how is it morally wrong to download that version? This benefits you as the viewer and arguably benefits the creator as well, while harming no one.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
People who use this excuse are forgetting the basis of copyright law: The creator OWNS (at least for some period of time) the creation. If you write a fantastic song and decide you are not going to release it in recorded form, that does not make it legal for someone to make a bootleg at one of your live performances and give it away or sell it. The “Bosda won’t release it, so what I’m doing is okay” argument is legally and morally bunk. The copyright owner may distribute or not distribute the protected work as he or she chooses.
[/QUOTE]
The basis of copyright law is to protect the content creator’s ability to sell and make money from a product. If they do not sell it, then that basis immidiately becomes moot. Copyright law was not intended to protect the content creator’s right not to distribute.

This makes no legal difference, of course, but it does seem to be a moral argument–if you commit to buying a legitimate copy of the product if it ever does become legally available (as I do, in the rare cases this ever comes up anymore).

[Gary_Robson]

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Sell it, no. Give it away, Hell yes. If you performed that song anywhere public, it is at least IMHO out there for anyone to listen to.
[/QUOTE]
If you wrote the song, you own the song. If you decide it’s for live performance only, or that it will be released only in Swahili, you can do that–legally and morally. It’s YOUR song. Nobody else has the right to do anything whatsoever with it.

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
I think that a reasonable time frame can be established for this as well. If there is a significant gap in time between a release, public or otherwise of a song or film, and years go by without a digital release; then fans have every right to put it out there for each other.
[/QUOTE]
The time frame is the expiration of the copyright. Until then, the fans have NO RIGHTS TO IT AT ALL. It’s really very plain and clear. The song (or book, or painting, or whatever) belongs to the person who created it. Not to the fans.

[QUOTE=tim314]
If someone genuinely believes that the creator of a work wouldn’t mind if they download a translated version, how is it morally wrong to download that version? This benefits you as the viewer and arguably benefits the creator as well, while harming no one.
[/QUOTE]
You have no way to know what the creator of the work believes unless you speak directly to that person. Maybe the person who created your favorite Anime wants to finish ten episodes before releasing them in the U.S. as a package. Maybe that person doesn’t like Americans. Maybe someone bought the American rights and hasn’t prepared them yet. You don’t know. And when you create an illegal copy and distribute it, don’t try to tell me your benefiting the person whose rights you’re violating.

[Gary_Robson]

[QUOTE=begbert2]
The basis of copyright law is to protect the content creator’s ability to sell and make money from a product. If they do not sell it, then that basis immidiately becomes moot. Copyright law was not intended to protect the content creator’s right not to distribute.
[/QUOTE]
Can you back up that claim? I believe that copyright law was indeed intended to protect the content creator’s right to do anything he or she damned well pleases with his or her own work.

If you write something in a private diary, do I have the right to print copies and distribute them on street corners because you have no right to not distribute? How about if you write a song you don’t like and don’t want distributed?

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]

And when you create an illegal copy and distribute it, don’t try to tell me your benefiting the person whose rights you’re violating.
[/QUOTE]

But you can be doing just that. Columbia has made a fair amount of money (I hope) releasing official copies of Dylan bootlegs. Do you think they’d have that market opportunity if the underground collectors hadn’t boosted demand? Let it Be Naked is similar - I own a bootleg with most of that stuff. When the official version came out, I bought it.

I suspect 99% of the reason bootlegs exist because there isn’t a good business proposition for releasing them for money. (At least in the old, pre-MP3 days.) Where there is demand, like in the case of the Dead. the stuff goes out officially.

I don’t know if artists are so embarrassed by some concert performances that they wouldn’t want a tape released - but I’ll note I don’t know of any who ever offered to refund money to the audience for a crap performance.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Can you back up that claim? I believe that copyright law was indeed intended to protect the content creator’s right to do anything he or she damned well pleases with his or her own work.
[/QUOTE]
From wikipedia on the subject:

[QUOTE=wikipedia]
The Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) authorized copyright legislation: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” That is, by guaranteeing them a period of time in which they alone could profit from their works, they would be enabled and encouraged to invest the time required to create them, and this would be good for society as a whole. A right to profit from the work has been the philosophical underpinning for much legislation extending the duration of copyright, to the life of the creator and beyond, to his heirs.
[/QUOTE]
That is, it’s all about profit. Not content burial.

I’ll note that the wiki also has much to say about ‘controlling’ rights, but I’m not seeing anything anywhere saying that the intent is to allow the content creator to let his work lie unused.

I will note that if the creation of copies of a content creator’s work by others while they’re not printing it dries of the market for future sales, then it would be defeating the profitability of the work, which is very likely why selling such content is illegal. However if I procure a copy early and then buy it from them when they finally do sell it (if they ever do), I am not defeating their profitability and thus not defeating the actual purpose of the copyright - which is why I feel such behavior is moral.

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
If you write something in a private diary, do I have the right to print copies and distribute them on street corners because you have no right to not distribute? How about if you write a song you don’t like and don’t want distributed?
[/QUOTE]
If you don’t want your private content published, don’t let people get their hands on it. It’s as simple as that.

[Gary_Robson]

[QUOTE=begbert2]
From wikipedia on the subject:
[/QUOTE]
The problem with quoting Wikipedia there is that I have no idea who wrote the Wikipedia stuff. Could have been you. If you’re going to claim that the intent of the copyright laws was different than what was actually written down and passed into law, then you’ll need better information to back it than some anonymous dude on the Internet.

[QUOTE=begbert2]
However if I procure a copy early and then buy it from them when they finally do sell it (if they ever do), I am not defeating their profitability and thus not defeating the actual purpose of the copyright - which is why I feel such behavior is moral.
[/QUOTE]
So next time you go on vacation, I’ll help myself to your car. I know it’s not for sale, but when you finally do sell it, I’ll go ahead and pay you for it.

[QUOTE=begbert2]
If you don’t want your private content published, don’t let people get their hands on it. It’s as simple as that.
[/QUOTE]
You really, actually believe that? You’re not just baiting me? You feel that if you’re listening at my window as I plunk out a new song on the piano, you have the right to record and distribute it? That if you get your hands on my private diary or photo album, you have the right to copy and distribute it? That if I write a book and decide I’m not releasing it (perhaps I’m going to do a rewrite, or there’s another book I’m going to release first), you have the right to copy and distribute it?

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
The problem with quoting Wikipedia there is that I have no idea who wrote the Wikipedia stuff. Could have been you. If you’re going to claim that the intent of the copyright laws was different than what was actually written down and passed into law, then you’ll need better information to back it than some anonymous dude on the Internet.
[/QUOTE]
And if you’re going to claim that the goal behind copyright law was for people to be able to create and then bury content, maybe you should provide evidence. The goal of protecting profit would be to convince content creators to create more work for public consumption, for the betterment of society. It makes zero sense for the government to bother encouraging you to produce nothing for society.

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
So next time you go on vacation, I’ll help myself to your car. I know it’s not for sale, but when you finally do sell it, I’ll go ahead and pay you for it.
[/QUOTE]
Forgetting the minor point of whether or not you’re depriving the original or legitimate owners of the use of the thing does not help your argument.

If it helps, if you want to observe my car around town and make your own duplicate of it, as exact a copy in every detail as you can manage, then feel free.

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
You really, actually believe that? You’re not just baiting me? You feel that if you’re listening at my window as I plunk out a new song on the piano, you have the right to record and distribute it? That if you get your hands on my private diary or photo album, you have the right to copy and distribute it? That if I write a book and decide I’m not releasing it (perhaps I’m going to do a rewrite, or there’s another book I’m going to release first), you have the right to copy and distribute it?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not suggesting or condoning trespass or physical theft here, even to the degree of peeking in windows. I’m also not condoning breaking posted rules for admission. (As in, I don’t support bringing cameras to plays or movie screenings.) However, if you’re out playing some song on a street corner, you can’t nail somebody to the wall for making a video of you.

And if you give your unpublished manuscript to somebody who is going to distribute it without asking you first, then 1) you are a retard, and 2) it’s pretty darned hard to have sympathy for you. Morally speaking persons who acquired your manuscript would be obligated to get rid of their bootleg once you started making legitimate copies of the work yourself. If they’re very nice to you they’ll erase their copy when they find out you didn’t mean for them to have it yet, but I hardly expect them to unread it and they have no moral obligation to forget it - or do the equivalent and destroy their hard copy.

[Acid_Lamp]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
You feel that if you’re listening at my window as I plunk out a new song on the piano, you have the right to record and distribute it? That if you get your hands on my private diary or photo album, you have the right to copy and distribute it? That if I write a book and decide I’m not releasing it (perhaps I’m going to do a rewrite, or there’s another book I’m going to release first), you have the right to copy and distribute it?
[/QUOTE]

Your example is straying into hyperbole. There is a world of difference from essentially spying on and stealing unfinished material, and recording and distributing freely, material that was performed publicly. Especially if that material was only performed live and never made an “official” cut. Fans like to hear the entirety of an artist’s scope of work, not merely that which a label releases. While I understand that musicians, (myself included) often try out many arrangements of a song live before settling on an official version, it’s crap to say that no one except those attending a given performance ought to be able to listen to a different version that was performed. “Early material” or “b” sides and variations are often some of the MOST sought after type of material. A lot of these recordings are often due to fans. They shouldn’t profit from it, but to merely preserve it for the enjoyment of themselves and other fans? Absolutely.

What is legal is NOT always what is ethical.

[Gary_Robson]

[QUOTE=begbert2]
And if you’re going to claim that the goal behind copyright law was for people to be able to create and then bury content, maybe you should provide evidence.
[/QUOTE]
I made no such claim. I said that the goal behind copyright law was to provide creative people with legal ownership of what they create, so that they can do whatever they please with it. YOU are the one who made the counterclaim that even though the law states that you own your creations, it was not intended to be that way.

[QUOTE=begbert2]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
So next time you go on vacation, I’ll help myself to your car. I know it’s not for sale, but when you finally do sell it, I’ll go ahead and pay you for it.
[/QUOTE]
Forgetting the minor point of whether or not you’re depriving the original or legitimate owners of the use of the thing does not help your argument.
[/QUOTE]
Not reading what you respond to doesn’t help your argument. I said “next time you go on vacation.” I carefully and intentionally included that. I’m not depriving you of the use of your vehicle if you’re not there to use it. I’ll just help myself whenever you’re not around. By your logic, that’s fine, right?

[QUOTE=begbert2]
And if you give your unpublished manuscript to somebody who is going to distribute it without asking you first, then 1) you are a retard, and 2) it’s pretty darned hard to have sympathy for you.
[/QUOTE]
Personal insults aren’t allowed in Great Debates, begbert2. EVERY author gives copies of unpublished manuscripts to people, and hopes they won’t distribute it without permission. The last tech book I wrote was given to at least seven peer-reviewers, one copyeditor, one proofreader, one editor, one fact-checker, one assistant, two cover designers, and one artist before it was published. How do I know whether one of them happens to follow your code of ethics and intends to distribute it without my permission?

Besides, my original comment referred to a personal diary. If I got into your house (as a guest, a contractor, or whatever) and took a copy of your diary, do you believe it would be ethically and legally okay for me to distribute copies?

[Gary_Robson]

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Your example is straying into hyperbole. There is a world of difference from essentially spying on and stealing unfinished material, and recording and distributing freely, material that was performed publicly. Especially if that material was only performed live and never made an “official” cut.
[/QUOTE]
I understand what you’re saying, Acid Lamp. My point, though, is that if you write a song, it’s YOUR decision when and how it should be released to the public. The fans don’t own it. You own it. If you choose not to release an early version because you don’t like it, that is your legal right. Ethically, your fans have an obligation to not make illegal bootlegs, even if they do really enjoy the full scope of your work.

I phrased my example as I did because I didn’t want to get into the whole definition of public performance. Because of the preponderance of highly-portable, good-quality recording devices, it is simply not practical to prevent people from recording what they see and hear.

Although I strongly disagree with begbert2’s ethics, I must agree with him that if an artist performs his music in public, he must expect that somebody, somewhere is going to record it and distribute it illegally. And it’s a fact of life that if the public decides it likes that cut better than the “official” cut, the artist will lose money. The so-called fan will then justify it as being for the greater good.

We have no Constitutional guarantee of privacy, and the feeling on the street seems to be that creative people don’t deserve to be paid for what they do. Combine those, and it becomes okay to sit under a musician’s window with a recorder and sell the recording (that’s really only a small stretch from what paparazzi do, right?). It sucks, but it’s today’s reality.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
I made no such claim. I said that the goal behind copyright law was to provide creative people with legal ownership of what they create, so that they can do whatever they please with it. YOU are the one who made the counterclaim that even though the law states that you own your creations, it was not intended to be that way.
[/QUOTE]
Whether or not you made that claim originally, you made it when you asserted that my position was so unlikely that the casual evidence from wikipedia doesn’t sufficiently back it up. (And you suggested that I might be dishonest too, in falsifying the wiki - good one, that.)

Frankly the idea that the copyrights were not made for the purpose of encouraging content creation via protecting content profitability strikes me as an outrageous claim. Back it up with evidence, please, or give it up - since you’ve provided no reason whatsoever to doubt that the wiki is correct.

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Not reading what you respond to doesn’t help your argument. I said “next time you go on vacation.” I carefully and intentionally included that. I’m not depriving you of the use of your vehicle if you’re not there to use it. I’ll just help myself whenever you’re not around. By your logic, that’s fine, right?
[/QUOTE]
I take my car on my vacations. And even if I didn’t, in using the original physical car you are damaging it; adding miles and wear, and risking destroying the thing in an accident. None of that applies to copied materials, which are the subject at hand - and which I already addressed, but you ignored that, presumably because it doesn’t serve your point.

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Personal insults aren’t allowed in Great Debates, begbert2.
[/QUOTE]
Good thing I insulted a hypothetical then, and no specific person, huh?

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
EVERY author gives copies of unpublished manuscripts to people, and hopes they won’t distribute it without permission.
[/QUOTE]
False. I myself have undistributed manuscipts. As does everyone with one of those diaries you’re going on about.

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
The last tech book I wrote was given to at least seven peer-reviewers, one copyeditor, one proofreader, one editor, one fact-checker, one assistant, two cover designers, and one artist before it was published. How do I know whether one of them happens to follow your code of ethics and intends to distribute it without my permission?
[/QUOTE]
Well if they don’t follow my code of ethics (and take actions accordingly), then I would consider their actions not to be ethical. See how easy this is? I don’t have to defend any of that.

And if these lot did anything that pissed you off with your manuscript, you could smack them down with copyright law, if you tried hard enough. This thread isn’t about alternate universes where copyright is different; it’s about why people break copyright law and what (usually flimsy) justifications they have. I am simply arguing a very specific scenario where I think it’s strongly justified as not being unethical to break copyright law.

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Besides, my original comment referred to a personal diary. If I got into your house (as a guest, a contractor, or whatever) and took a copy of your diary, do you believe it would be ethically and legally okay for me to distribute copies?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, that’s still trespass and quite possibly physical theft, unless you had a stack of copies out in the open at the party with a sign that says “Take one” on them. Or do you have this bizarre idea that just because you’re allowed through the front door you’re allowed to pillage the house at will? Sorry, that’s divorced from reality. And as it is tresspass and quite possibly physical theft, I already covered it in my argument.

[Deeg]

Have software companies tried to install a rootkit recently? Sony got so much heat when they were caught that I wouldn’t have expected anybody to try it again.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=DigitalC]
I don’t think gaming companies are stupid enough to think their anti piracy policy helps in any way stop piracy. What it does though is to completely destroy the used game market. Go to any gaming store, you will see stacks of used console games for sale and zero PC games. If you want a game you have to come to them, and they get to blame the filthy pirates for their own unenthical behavior. And im the one whos supposed to feel bad?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, there’s another thing it, and the whole hysteria about piracy does - it excuses failure. As the developer for Sins of a Solar Empire pointed out, if piracy was such an overwhelming problem, games lacking copy protection like that couldn’t make a profit. Claiming massive losses because of piracy lets you pretend that people aren’t avoiding buying your product because they don’t like it. Instead, you can claim your product is so good that people are stealing it, and that’s why sales are low.

[Gary_Robson]

[QUOTE=begbert2]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
I made no such claim. I said that the goal behind copyright law was to provide creative people with legal ownership of what they create, so that they can do whatever they please with it. YOU are the one who made the counterclaim that even though the law states that you own your creations, it was not intended to be that way.
[/QUOTE]
Whether or not you made that claim originally, you made it when you asserted that my position was so unlikely that the casual evidence from wikipedia doesn’t sufficiently back it up.
[/QUOTE]
It appears we’re not on the same page. I, personally, believe that the intent of copyright law matches the implementation of copyright law–it provides creative people with ownership of their works. I don’t see why I would need a citation to say that the law was written as intended.

[QUOTE=begbert2]
(And you suggested that I might be dishonest too, in falsifying the wiki - good one, that.)
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely did not mean to suggest that you falsified the wiki, or anything else. I suggested that you might have written it, which does not make it a valid GD cite. Do you have another cite?

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Frankly the idea that the copyrights were not made for the purpose of encouraging content creation via protecting content profitability strikes me as an outrageous claim.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s get onto common ground here. We can break my claim into two parts.

(1) Current law provides the artist with full control over distribution of the copyrighted work–including control over when, how, AND IF the work is distributed.

(2) This was the original intent of the law.

If you disagree with part 1, then we can go analyze the text of the law.

If you agree with part 1, but disagree with part 2, then please explain to me why this claim is outrageous–and why you’d need a citation to believe it.

[QUOTE=begbert2]
I take my car on my vacations. And even if I didn’t, in using the original physical car you are damaging it; adding miles and wear, and risking destroying the thing in an accident. None of that applies to copied materials, which are the subject at hand - and which I already addressed, but you ignored that, presumably because it doesn’t serve your point.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see a difference between putting wear and tear on your car without your permission (which reduces its resale value) and you distributing copies of my books or music without my permission (which reduces their resale value). Both illegal. Both (in my opinion) unethical.

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Good thing I insulted a hypothetical then, and no specific person, huh?
[/QUOTE]
You called everyone who writes books a retard, because we let people see our manuscripts before publication.

[QUOTE=begbert2]
False. I myself have undistributed manuscipts. As does everyone with one of those diaries you’re going on about.
[/QUOTE]
sigh I meant manuscripts for books. My apologies for not making that crystal clear.

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Well if they don’t follow my code of ethics (and take actions accordingly), then I would consider their actions not to be ethical.
[/QUOTE]
Now I’m confused. I thought your code of ethics said if I sent you a copy of my next book and asked you to proofread it, it would be okay (in fact, you’d be doing my fans a favor) for you to distribute illegal copies of the book.

Did I misunderstand you?

[QUOTE=begbert2]
This thread isn’t about alternate universes where copyright is different; it’s about why people break copyright law and what (usually flimsy) justifications they have.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I was trying to discuss before we got off on this digression about your particular flimsy justification, which is that breaking copyright law is supposedly okay if the copyright holder didn’t get his work out on the street in a form, manner, and timetable you agree with.

[Siam_Sam]

[QUOTE=Windwalker]
I live in China, and I buy software in stores all the time. Of course, when Adobe Photoshop costs 5 RMB (less than a dollar), you know it’s pirated, …
[/QUOTE]

And Thailand is Pirate Central. The big legitimate department stores and international software subsidiaries can be counted on to carry nothing but real software, but the small local shops that carry software will look legitimate but actually be all pirated. Why do pirates pirate? Here, there’s a lot of money to be made. Not just software, but movies, watches, fashion handbags – and even ladies! :eek: – are all fakes, and tourists who may maintain the moral high ground back home will stock up on them while on holiday in Thailand. The authorities periodically make a show of destroying rounded-up pirated goods, but it’s always stuff from poor shlubs who have crossed the authorities in some way, such as by not being forthcoming enough with their bribes. Entire business offices here run on 100% pirated programming and systems.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
It appears we’re not on the same page. I, personally, believe that the intent of copyright law matches the implementation of copyright law–it provides creative people with ownership of their works. I don’t see why I would need a citation to say that the law was written as intended.

I absolutely did not mean to suggest that you falsified the wiki, or anything else. I suggested that you might have written it, which does not make it a valid GD cite. Do you have another cite?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t feel I need to provide another cite - as I don’t feel you have provided any cites whatsoever. However, there is at least some disconnect between what I’m claiming, and what you think I’m claiming - see below.

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Let’s get onto common ground here. We can break my claim into two parts.

(1) Current law provides the artist with full control over distribution of the copyrighted work–including control over when, how, AND IF the work is distributed.

(2) This was the original intent of the law.

If you disagree with part 1, then we can go analyze the text of the law.

If you agree with part 1, but disagree with part 2, then please explain to me why this claim is outrageous–and why you’d need a citation to believe it.
[/QUOTE]
1 is true; 2 is not.

I disagree that the intent of the law is adequately described by citing its specific effect - that’s like saying that we require people to stop at stoplights because we like stopping cars in regular patterns. It’s clearly not - the intent is to maintain order and thus increase safety and effeciency of traffic flow, with the actual stopping being merely the method chosen to make it happen. The means are not the same as the end, and the intention of the law is not necessarily written in the text of the law.

I maintain that the intent of the part of the law that gives the author the right to prevent other people from publishing his works is intended to prevent them from doing so in a way that undercuts the content creator’s potential to profit from the work. Clearly, if the market is flooded with bootleg disks being sold for a pittance and that makes it impossible for the filmmaker to sell his movie for a price this will make it profitable, that clearly is cutting into the profit of the content creator. Preventing that is why the law prevents unauthorized creation and distribution of works, I’m quite certain.

However, I consider it moral to buy bootlegs only if you buy the real thing through official channels when/if it becomes available.. Clearly, with the added stipulation the author’s profit is not threatened, and thus the intent of the law is not being violated - despite still being illegal by the law because the law does note bother with making special cases based on promises of intent to purchase in the future.

Summation: I think the law is trying to stop mooks who would buy the bootlegs instead of the official release. Persons who buy both are the baby that’s being thrown out with the bathwater, legally speaking.

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
I don’t see a difference between putting wear and tear on your car without your permission (which reduces its resale value) and you distributing copies of my books or music without my permission (which reduces their resale value). Both illegal. Both (in my opinion) unethical.
[/QUOTE]
But the way I do it, it doesn’t reduce the profitability of the copyrighted work. See the distinction?

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
You called everyone who writes books a retard, because we let people see our manuscripts before publication.

sigh I meant manuscripts for books. My apologies for not making that crystal clear.
[/QUOTE]
My manuscript is for a book - in progress. And lest you twist my words, I said “if you give your unpublished manuscript to somebody who is going to distribute it without asking you first” Note the bolded portion. Then note that not everyone who writes a book will work with a publisher that they think is such a crook that there’s a credible chance they will steal the work.

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Now I’m confused. I thought your code of ethics said if I sent you a copy of my next book and asked you to proofread it, it would be okay (in fact, you’d be doing my fans a favor) for you to distribute illegal copies of the book.

Did I misunderstand you?
[/QUOTE]
You’re confusing me with other posters. I think it would not be unethical for me to keep a copy lying around once you’ve sent it to me; I don’t morally need to purge my documents and windows backup directory and burn the copy you sent me. However I could only ethically distribute it to other people if I was certain that they’d end up with a purchased copy of the real deal when it became available - that is, people who I know have my same unwavering position on the matter - which is nobody (so far as I know for certain).

I have in actual fact purchased people bootlegs of currently unavailable TV shows for gifts. I am morally obligated to also purchase them copies of the real thing if it is ever released. That’s the rules! (If I want to retain a grip on my ethics, that is.)

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
That’s what I was trying to discuss before we got off on this digression about your particular flimsy justification, which is that breaking copyright law is supposedly okay if the copyright holder didn’t get his work out on the street in a form, manner, and timetable you agree with.
[/QUOTE]
My particular flimsy justification is that if the content creator publicly releases (through some media or public performance) their content, and then stops releasing it later, then it is not unethical to gather copies of this released work - though doing so makes you morally obligated to purchase a future release of that same content if it is ever created and sold by the content creator.

I am however not of the opinion that distributing such content is as certainly ethical. The bulk of your customers are likely to be feckless amoral geeks who just want to get stuff without paying for it (or without paying full price for it), and while such distributors are doing a service for those like me who will pay for the real thing later, they’re also enabling the leeches, which is morally troubling. I wouldn’t do it myself.

Anyway, this’d probably go easier if you don’t mix me up with the “gimme it for free!” crowd.

[E-Sabbath]

[QUOTE=Deeg]
Have software companies tried to install a rootkit recently? Sony got so much heat when they were caught that I wouldn’t have expected anybody to try it again.
[/QUOTE]

BioWare Social Network

SecuROM

nProtect GameGuard

Rootkit or rootkit-like behavior? Yeah. The first one crashes explorer when you right-click on files. Nice, isn’t it?